Geithner also misleads the reader about the single most important moment of the crisis: when Goldman got bailed out through Federal Reserve loans to AIG. This mattered because it was when the public really began taking over the debts of the financial system, and it’s well documented in the Congressional Oversight Report of June 2010. When AIG was on the verge of going under, exposing every big bank that had bought insurance from them, Geithner had a choice. He could force big banks to share the losses or just bail them out. He chose the bailout. Rather than forcing Goldman and JP Morgan to share in AIG’s loss, to which they were heavily exposed, Geithner took 100 percent of the liability on the New York Fed’s balance sheet. Then, in November of 2008, the Fed bought back underlying securities from Goldman, at par, despite their trading at 50 cents on the dollar. This was a massive funneling of resources to Goldman in particular.

“The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)”

They're going to either steal it directly (and suddenly!), or indirectly through inflation.

Bitcoin is the exit.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: https://onchainfx.comFrontpage of crypto: https://messari.io

ConclusionAs can be conclusively seen, the relative impact of the Bitcoin network does not even register on the radar of the fiat and gold-based monetary systems, representing a very conservative relative environmental impact of 0.11%, and a relative economic impact of 0.275%. There are no negative social externalities as a result of Bitcoin proliferation, and any money laundering and shadow economy dealings that currently happen on the network will reduce drastically in proportion as adoption grows and regulations firm up on the on-and-off ramps into the Bitcoin economy. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the crypto-currency space will take time to evolve to ensure that the issues faced and created by our legacy monetary systems do not continue to plague us for the next century and beyond.Although this paper has shied away from all of the ideological and philosophical debates surrounding Bitcoin, what is clear is that the argument that Bitcoin is superior monetary system – from the benefits and protections it provides to merchants and consumers, to the relative lack of negative impact it has on our planet and humanity in general – is a strong one.The world is currently crippled by several issues, and the human race faces several existential threats such as climate change, the global ageing population demographic crisis and wealth and income inequality. It is also unacceptable in 2014 to still have tens of millions of people forced into labour, and current monetary systems are somewhat responsible for several of the social ills brought about by corruption, money laundering and the black market.For those who are willing to back their principles and morals with their money, Bitcoin provides the opportunity for socially, environmentally and economically conscious global citizens to choose to no longer participate in the fragile and rotten legacy monetary system, and voluntarily participate in the open and wondrous Bitcoin ecosystem. Due to the several benefits and significantly reduced burden on our planet and society, there is a certain feeling of inevitability about digital currencies, whether it be Bitcoin, or a future currency that proves to be even more sustainable and beneficial for humanity.

Priceless data:: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network pic.twitter.com/dGBsXqzXPp

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

Priceless data:: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network pic.twitter.com/dGBsXqzXPp

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

Priceless data:: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network pic.twitter.com/dGBsXqzXPp

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

However unlike all the others it is neatly divided by Moore's law.

? I don't think Moore's law is applicable here.EDIT: The funds that are invested in mining should be slightly below the expected return (some margin for profit based on risk), so correlated with the BTC price. If the mining equipment becomes more efficient, then you just buy extra hashing power.

Priceless data:: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network pic.twitter.com/dGBsXqzXPp

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

it's quite possible that hashrate is leading a price explosion, however. we are oversecured. it's been relentlessly going up for over years now and imo is a leading indicator.

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

it's quite possible that hashrate is leading a price explosion, however. it's been relentlessly going up for over years now and imo is a leading indicator.

Ok, but you still expect mining investment to go up in the coming years, no?

All in all probably not a hugely important issue, I just felt compelled to point out what I perceived as a 'flaw' in the chart.

"Andrew Ross Sorkin: I don’t know if it’s a Stockholm Syndrome or what, but everybody that I talk to out here — and you sort of get into it — really does talk about Bitcoin as the next big thing. And they believe it. And they mean it. It is not just some kind of fly-by-night thing they are playing with. They are serious, and very big companies out here, are very, very serious about it."

I disagree with the "emission trend: decreasing" for bitcoin. Ok, in the very long run this is true, but if bitcoin will pick up like most of us here think it will, then the BTC price will go up a lot, and so will mining investment/electricity consumption. Every reward halving should cut that in two though.

it's quite possible that hashrate is leading a price explosion, however. it's been relentlessly going up for over years now and imo is a leading indicator.

Ok, but you still expect mining investment to go up in the coming years, no?

All in all probably not a hugely important issue, I just felt compelled to point out what I perceived as a 'flaw' in the chart.

i'm not saying you're wrong. in fact, there's a helluva lot of banking infrastructure to replace if Bitcoin does get going. but i do think mining has gotten quite a bit ahead of the price, so we'll see.

Not sure what the point of the socioeconomic effects graph is, as some would argue bitcoin is not negligible in the corruption, money laundering, black markets department. What is a good reference point for gold bugs is to realize that any monetary system has large infrastructure costs and if the world would somehow switch back to gold those costs would be astronomical compared to Bitcoin.